Post navigation

23 thoughts on “General debate, August 26, 2012”

With the best lawyer money can buy and a 5 day trial the best he could do was to get a slightly lesser charge. I didn’t say he did it deliberately Photonz.

I said he drove over someone who was standing in front of his car.

Which he did.

Causing grievous bodily harm.

With reckless disregard.

I’m sorry Photonz, but you are right off the reality map here. If someone is in front of your car banging on your hood, you STILL have no right to put that car in motion and that person in jeopardy of life and limb.

I am sorry to be unyielding but THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DO THAT AT ALL, and your experience on a motorbike is not applicable in several respects.

“causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard” was what he was convicted of and the LEAST of what actually happened. I also think that any law that has “intent” in it can almost never be effectively prosecuted, as any decent lawyer can demonstrate.

The man committed a serious crime. He showed a reckless disregard. Without his high-priced legal aid he’d probably have gotten a bit more time to reflect on how to hold his temper.

He DID put the car in motion and I have to presume intent to do so as it was not claimed that he lost control of the vehicle. If he WAS in control, then there is no question that he intended to make it move, knowing full well that Mr Kim WAS in front of it.

The only way to escape “intent” here is that he expected Mr Kim to move out of the way. He had no right to that assumption either, nor to assume that Mr Kim was ABLE to do so.

The law in this case wants amending, since it is willing to contemplate “intent” it may as well also have a separate category for people who allow themselves to reach a “state of rage”.

The sentence was not, I think, appropriate given the damage done to Mr Kim… who could just as easily have been killed and will be, for the rest of his life, maimed.

“Unintentionally”. My personal opinion being no better than anyone else’s but the sentence, partiality and comments of the Judge in this is a worse look than usual.

BJ says “the other is to run over a guy who does that, unless he produces a weapon.”

For Hallwright to get the usual punishment for deliberately running over Mr Kim, first he would have to be found guilty of that.

He was not.

In fact he was aquited of deliberately running over Mr Kim, and found guilty on the lesser charge of recklessly running him over.

I had a guy try to kill me in a road rage incident once (he drove his car down the footpath at me). I was on a motorbike and manouevered behind a post. He then got out and punched me in the head (which was really stupid as I still had my helmet on).

I managed to take off, but if had tried to get in my way I certainly wouldn’t have stopped.

And rememeber that just months earlier an elderly man was dragged out of his car in a road rage incident and killed.

If you WRONGLY START a road rage incident, then ATTACK someones car, and get run over, it’s self inflicted.

Good god man that’s an awful thing to say. If you really think somebody deserves life long injuries and multiple surgeries that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars just because he banged on the bonnet of a car, you’re clearly crazy!

At the trial, Hallwright’s daughter said that after being tooted at by Mr Kim, her father drove into a carpark near Galbraith’s Alehouse.

She said her father approached Mr Kim’s car, had words and then shut his door, before Mr Kim came to their vehicle and slammed his hands on the bonnet. Her father drove away, running over Mr Kim in the process.

Either way, there’s no justification for the crime which the banker was found guilty of and there’s no justification in my opinion for the pathetic sentence he has received.

“who started it” – is not settled by any part of any account I see here.

You COULD be right about who “started it” Photonz, but you can’t assume anything on that count. My appreciation of road manners and the development of such situations is that both parties will have been at fault.

There are two things I would NOT do.

One is to stand in front of someone’s car and bang on the hood, the other is to run over a guy who does that, unless he produces a weapon.

For him to reach me he HAS to do something that takes him out from in front of my car.

Road Rage or not. Which indicates to me that both parties participated in the idiocy and that both parties had “lost it”.

The excuses made here BY THE JUDGE, are a very difficult thing to understand… and it is the Judge that Jackal is castigating, not the banker.

um, so lets see …… so far on this site photonz1 has supported people who kill taggers , supported people who molest their children blame the booze and get name suppression ( since overturned ), and now he supports people using their vehicle’s to run others over in ‘road rage’.

Jackal ahows the sort of dickhead comments from someone who judges first by who a person is, rather than what actually happened.

If someone attacked my car, with my daughter inside, recently after someone was just killed in a road rage incident, I’d also take off and if the insane bastard attacking my car didn’t move and let me and my daughter escape, then tough.

If you WRONGLY START a road rage incident, then ATTACK someones car, and get run over, it’s self inflicted.

Does anyone else notice the hypocrisy of some MP’s – say Simon Bridges – who keep referring to the public support for an age 20 purchase age, when they ignored public suppport for the Wall bill the day before when they voted against it.

Any human rights based decision making should mean we do not make law based on discriminating against people based on age, sexuality, gender, religion or race.

That a Law Commission could recommend otherwise suggests we are not mature enough in the legal profession to have a constitution and makes one wonder whether our Supreme Court will lack for judicial capacity in any case. As for parliamentarians, that they can even seriously contemplate prohibiting voting citizens from exercising an equal choice, suggests they to are not ready to develop a constitution for this country.

Surely at least 80 MP’s are now supposed to get it, even if the Herald clearly does not.

Target those who drink to get drunk, but do not discriminate against those under 20 to do so. For there are many under that age who do not binge drink and to deny them their rights, because of those that do, is discrimination against the based solely on their age. There are enough people who drink to get drunk at an older age group to justify prohibition for all of us on those grounds – but we know prohibition does not work. So why do we want to criminalise 18 and 19 year olds like we did others before 1986?

WINZ could save a couple off million dollars each year, if only they would do a little Synchronization of there clients, a little time management.
Sickness beneficiaries have to go to the GP every 3 months to have there benefit renewed.
And once a year the Sickness beneficiaries also get a full review, which means another GP visit.
The current system means that once a year a Sickness beneficiary will go to the GP for a 3 month renewal and then, go to the GP again (generally within 3 weeks of just getting there medical certificate updated) for another medical certificate, even though they have a valid one on record that’s not due to expire for another couple of months.
This costs each Sickness beneficiary around $40 with is refunded by Winz.
So my point is, if Winz synchronized this Annual medical certificate with the 3 month medical certificate, it would save the state the cost of a medical certificate.
If there are 59,500 people on a Sickness benefit then performing this would save the Government around $2,380,000 each and every year.

Not sure if there is a similar issue with invalid beneficiaries but if there is then that could more than double the $2+ million dollars.

Yes, the GP’s will make less money but will also have less paper to deal with and would be able to cope with an extra 59,500 sick people.

Note: I don’t want my private information by Paula Benefit or any Winz staff or Ministers.

Couldn’t agree more sprout and BJ. I’m starting to think that it’s not just incompetence that has caused the marked increased in childhood poverty in New Zealand… The vindictive way Metiria’s questions were mocked by National MPs and especially John Key as if they were a joke just shows how shallow and unthoughtful they can be. It’s no joke though and hopefully the public will make the right decision in 2014.

With inequality increasing the fastest of all OECD countries, New Zealand now has 270,000 children living in poverty… That’s a quarter of all Kiwi kids growing up impoverished and in need. In a developed country with ample resources, this is a complete and utter disgrace!

Nice for transportation in summer, horrific in so far as (once frozen and trapped) methane will be released, problematic for the safety of the environment when there comes an attempt to extract under sea minerals, and potentially earth climate system changing – if there is a consequential change in sea currents.